Should anyone ever apologize when requested to?

[Scott Mayers]

I say no. The nature of one begging one to apologize is itself doomed for the mere asking. If one actually DOES apologize when expectedly asked to, they'd require follow up to compensate for this regardless because the actions themselves are the proof, not the words. In fact, most of the time this is requested, the persons demanding it often act deceptive when they add that this is ALL they expect.

An 'apology' is (or rather should be) the explanation using words for ones actions for why they did something they own responsibility for. But 'owning' responsibility has to come with a follow-up PROOF of this and it often backfires because the act of proving oneself at fault was not voluntary.

It's like what occurs when some convict admits guilt after they were caught. You can't tell what the admission means afterthefact even if he or she is even potentially very sincere. 

 

The reason for this question is intended to extend this rationale to the politics of 'official apologies'. Does my reasoning above extend logically to many of the issues our government and others have experienced in using official apologies?

 

[turningrite]

I tend to be wary of the culture of political apology that's emerged in this country. To me, it's sufficient to say that something that happened in the past was wrong, at least from the perspective of the present. But in most cases, individuals who are alive today had/have no direct association with many of the wrongs that are now being acknowledged. It's particularly odd that when we are so careful not to ascribe negative traits, behaviors or blame to members of some groups for the actions of those who purport to act in their name, and in fact we're told we mustn't do so, we're quick in other circumstances to ascribe collective blame for often long-past historical injustices. To me, the whole enterprise of political apology seems contrived and manipulative and has established a double standard.

On an individual level, however, where one's rights as a citizen or consumer are in the present negatively impacted by another, or others, I believe that expecting or requesting an apology is entirely reasonable. It's a form of accountability. If persons, agencies or companies aren't expect to and don't acknowledge specific fault when errors are made, our rights as citizens and consumers are undermined.  

[Scott Mayers]

I was thinking of personal issues that extend to government because within real interpersonal relationships, this is even MORE true. For instance, see this popular song as reference (and for entertainment value if you'd like): 

 

We need more than words for apologies in the same respect to show one has compassionate sincerity towards others. When words are used alone, they have zero function other than FOR the one speaking but they don't require backing it up: they can continue to behave the way they were before. 

Governments being asked to apologize with urgency are doing so by those requesting it precisely because it is intended to act as an initial step to get retribution in some way later with legitimacy only. It throws back the potential kindness one might be willing to offer for reconciliation with insult that doesn't have an end. The guilt is expected to be owned by ALL people and for ALL times when it is offered up by a government.

[betsy]

On 6/15/2018 at 10:16 AM, Scott Mayers said:

I say no. The nature of one begging one to apologize is itself doomed for the mere asking. If one actually DOES apologize when expectedly asked to, they'd require follow up to compensate for this regardless because the actions themselves are the proof, not the words. In fact, most of the time this is requested, the persons demanding it often act deceptive when they add that this is ALL they expect.

An 'apology' is (or rather should be) the explanation using words for ones actions for why they did something they own responsibility for. But 'owning' responsibility has to come with a follow-up PROOF of this and it often backfires because the act of proving oneself at fault was not voluntary.

It's like what occurs when some convict admits guilt after they were caught. You can't tell what the admission means afterthefact even if he or she is even potentially very sincere. 

 

The reason for this question is intended to extend this rationale to the politics of 'official apologies'. Does my reasoning above extend logically to many of the issues our government and others have experienced in using official apologies?

 

 

Anyway.....why should the present generation apologise for the past? 

Everyone has done atrocities to everyone at some point!   Even Indigenous people did atrocities to each other in their tribal wars, did they apologise to one another?  Quest for dominion, is one of the reasons.

 

Quote

 

“mourning war,” usually began at the behest of women who had lost a son or husband and desired the group's male warriors to capture individuals from other groups who could replace those they had lost. Captives might help maintain a stable population or appease the grief of bereaved relatives: if the women of the tribe so demanded, captives would be ritually tortured, sometimes to death if the captive was deemed unfit for adoption into the tribe.

On the Western Plains, pre‐Columbian warfare—before the introduction of horses and guns—pitted tribes against one another for control of territory and its resources, as well as for captives and honor. Indian forces marched on foot to attack rival tribes who sometimes resided in palisaded villages

Bands of Lakota Sioux moved westward from the Eastern Woodlands and waged war against Plains residents to secure access to buffalo for subsistence and trade with Euro‐Americans. Lakota Sioux populations, unlike most Indian groups, increased in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries; this expansion required greater access to buffalo and thus more territory.

 

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195071986.001.0001/acref-9780195071986-e-0618

 

They did it to each other, and they got conquered by a more powerful "tribe" - the Europeans.   Conquest - that's the name of the game!  

 

Yes, I agree that an apology lead to being required to pay!  No, we shouldn't be too quick to apologise for anything.....

Edited June 17, 2018 by betsy

[eyeball]

On 6/15/2018 at 7:16 AM, Scott Mayers said:

I say no. The nature of one begging one to apologize is itself doomed for the mere asking. If one actually DOES apologize when expectedly asked to, they'd require follow up to compensate for this regardless because the actions themselves are the proof, not the words. In fact, most of the time this is requested, the persons demanding it often act deceptive when they add that this is ALL they expect.

An 'apology' is (or rather should be) the explanation using words for ones actions for why they did something they own responsibility for. But 'owning' responsibility has to come with a follow-up PROOF of this and it often backfires because the act of proving oneself at fault was not voluntary.

It's like what occurs when some convict admits guilt after they were caught. You can't tell what the admission means afterthefact even if he or she is even potentially very sincere. 

 

The reason for this question is intended to extend this rationale to the politics of 'official apologies'. Does my reasoning above extend logically to many of the issues our government and others have experienced in using official apologies?

 

Not in the least.  Official apologies are from politically organized societies and usually given to aggrieved individuals and groups of individuals affected by the actions of that society.

Almost every official apology is preceded by years if not decades and even generations of wrangling, sometimes violently, but eventually official legal processes bring past grievances to bear on a society in the present.  A society or culture that is organized to the extent it is a political or national entity that spans generations is just not the same as a human being of limited lifespan.  Official apologies extend the principle of individual responsibility.  It seems odd to me that the concept of collective responsibility shouldn't be a logical and natural given in a progressive democracy where voters take responsibility for the governments they elect.

I find it interesting that the staunchest critics of collective responsibility, especially when attended by compensation, are usually the staunchest supporters of individual responsibility and especially seeing to it that individuals pay a debt to society.

Edited June 19, 2018 by eyeball

[Scott Mayers]

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

Not in the least.  Official apologies are from politically organized societies and usually given to aggrieved individuals and groups of individuals affected by the actions of that society.

Almost every official apology is preceded by years if not decades and even generations of wrangling, sometimes violently, but eventually official legal processes bring past grievances to bear on a society in the present.  A society or culture that is organized to the extent it is a political or national entity that spans generations is just not the same as a human being of limited lifespan.  Official apologies extend the principle of individual responsibility.  It seems odd to me that the concept of collective responsibility shouldn't be a logical and natural given in a progressive democracy where voters take responsibility for the governments they elect.

I find it interesting that the staunchest critics of collective responsibility, especially when attended by compensation, are usually the staunchest supporters of individual responsibility and especially seeing to it that individuals pay a debt to society.

My point about this is about when the apology is being ASKED by someone, not about one volunteering it. Trudeau's apologies, for instance comes AFTER the expectation.

When one DEMANDS an apology often with the deceptive means of implicit claims that the verbal apology is ALL that is demanded, is itself just a way to officially open the door for later formal proceedings that USE that apology as a justification for imposing perpetual guilt and further demands upon those whom the apology was representing. 

Trudeau 'apologized' for ALL non-Natives, for instance, who remotely LOOK like all those historically linked to the cause...such as one being European who are born here. This is a false 'apology' because it isn't even his right to grant it (representing ALL European decendents, that is). It also imposes penalty to all those people that have no link to those benefiting families of the establishment, such AS Trudeau's own family. This is a way to distribute the debt to the masses to avoid the SPECIFIC cultures (who believe in those 'cultures' ethnic identity ONLY) responsible. I happen to be linked to European ancestry and so am treated as though I TOO own the problem regardless of my lack of "European" culture.

On your apparent innuendo that I am one of those 'staunchest critics', you are way off and actually stereotype me as being someone who also 'owes' some debt in kind precisely to my point above. I've never owned even a car. I've struggled on the streets to survive and had even the most trouble getting 'help' from these supposed compassionate governments who stereotyped me as though I come from conditions I don't deserve help from. My own circumstances were similar to those OF 'cultural' identities among the poor but get treated by even those IN my similar community as though I MUST have some opportunities that literally do not exist.

 So I'm not against "COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY"; I'm against the fact that this is itself a fraud when people use the apparent identity of people based upon 'culture' as the problem when this is ONLY an expedient to isolate those OF the impoverished communities and justifying saving money by the real compassion to helping ALL suffering people of the same real conditions. By picking a 'cultural identity' and using these phoney apologies, the intent is to apologize for "Europeans" as a whole by arrogantly fortunate "Europeans" who default to EMBRACING their own cults and imposing their assumed beliefs of their ancestors as mine too.

I'm going beyond the direct intent of this thread. But these link together. You are right that there will be those who also ride on arguments of this sort to possibly excuse their own justification NOT to pay taxes or the burden of their own 'cultures'. I don't support these either. But if forced to take sides, when you are on the bottom and know that EVERY major political sides treat you as insignificant, we are being forced to take those sides of people who at least support our arguments, just as the ones being apologized to as a single culture are stupid NOT to take advantage of the false but beneficial factors granted to them upon those phoney apologies. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

My point about this is about when the apology is being ASKED by someone, not about one volunteering it. Trudeau's apologies, for instance comes AFTER the expectation.

Why are you suddenly throwing Trudeau in my face, are you expecting me to apologize for him or something? That's s hoot, I think he's a complete asshole. 

You posted a rather odd question about unspecified individuals in general, extended it to governments, again in general, and that's what I responded to, not some other point that you're just now trying to make clear, badly.  As for the innuendo you refer to I was actually directing it at Betsy but given you clearly liked what she said...you've pretty much stereotyped yourself.

Its no surprise the rest of your post was so far beyond the intent of the thread - I'm pretty sure it would be an even bigger  waste of time trying to respond to that too.

My apologies.

[Scott Mayers]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

17 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

My point about this is about when the apology is being ASKED by someone, not about one volunteering it. Trudeau's apologies, for instance comes AFTER the expectation.

Why are you suddenly throwing Trudeau in my face, are you expecting me to apologize for him or something? That's s hoot, I think he's a complete asshole. 

You posted a rather odd question about unspecified individuals in general, extended it to governments, again in general, and that's what I responded to, not some other point that you're just now trying to make clear, badly.  As for the innuendo you refer to I was actually directing it at Betsy but given you clearly liked what she said...you've pretty much stereotyped yourself.

Its no surprise the rest of your post was so far beyond the intent of the thread - I'm pretty sure it would be an even bigger  waste of time trying to respond to that too.

My apologies.

I didn't know it was a crime to misinterpret or be misinterpreted, as I understood you of me and why my response. You were responding to me and if you were insulting Betsy for her own agreement, it WAS 'innuendo' as you clearly worded. That's the problem of innuendo....you CAN'T directly make sense of what nor whom the speaker is taking credit for saying. It depends on 'reading into' it.

I didn't presume you a Trudeau fan either.  I actually DO like the guy as a person, in fact, and he was the best candidate of all parties to be Prime Minister, I believe, even though I'm preferentially NDP. But I don't believe in presuming clear-cut distinctions between people's ideas.

I used his 'apologies' TO the Natives FOR the whole of Non-Natives born here in Canada, as a relevant example as it also relates to individuals extended to leaders of a political body representing the whole.

 

If it is bad to 'apologize' by individuals in interpersonal relations, it is WORSE for a politician to do it because where you can't be certain individuals apologies among individuals battle with distinct thoughts in their heads, it IS distinct when it comes to the varying believes of the whole. One can only volunteer apology BY and FOR their own self-driven emotions AND requires a real follow-up directly as 'proof' one's words coincide with their internal sincerity. So when one who apologizes about whole classes of people, the apology is intentionally insincere and problematic for both of those classes because the 'classes' are NOT EVEN individuals. 

[betsy]

The grand apology to LGBT made by Trudeau.   It comes with an up to $100 million  price tag.

 

 

Ottawa’s ‘gay purge’ settlement expanded to include all who suffered as early as 1955

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/26/ottawas-gay-purge-settlement-expanded-to-include-more-people-who-suffered-as-early-as-1955.html

 

 

When will Trudeau apologise to all women for being treated as second class citizens?   How much will that cost?

 

When will Trudeau apologise to those who were forced to seek abortions in dark alleys, and to those who were forced to bear and deliver unwanted babies?  How much will that cost?

Edited June 21, 2018 by betsy